Post on 14-Mar-2020
“Silence is a true friend that never betrays” Confucius
Silence in Text-based Computer Mediated Communication
Yoram M Kalman1
October, 2004
This PhD proposal was written under the supervision of professor Sheizaf Rafaeli, at the
University of Haifa Center for the Study of the Information Society
An online version of this document, with active links, is located at:
http://study.haifa.ac.il/~ykalman/Research Proposal.pdf
1 ykalman@study.haifa.ac.ilhttp://study.haifa.ac.il/~ykalman
1
Table of Contents
Summary..........................................................................................................................3Literature Survey.............................................................................................................8
Silence..........................................................................................................................8Online Social Cognition and Chronemics.................................................................12
Social Cognition....................................................................................................12Social Cognition Online........................................................................................13Chronemics............................................................................................................23
Silence in CMC..........................................................................................................25Online Irresponsiveness.........................................................................................27Online Responsiveness and Response Times........................................................30
The Research Question and Its Import..........................................................................32The Research Question..............................................................................................32What is Online Silence?.............................................................................................32
Alternative Definitions..........................................................................................35Intentional and Unintentional Silence.......................................................................35
Intentional Silence.................................................................................................36Unintentional Silence.............................................................................................36
How is Silence Experienced and Interpreted.............................................................37Interpreting Silence................................................................................................37
Conclusion.................................................................................................................39Import of the Research Question...............................................................................40
Contributions to Theory.........................................................................................41Contributions to Practice.......................................................................................41
Methodology..................................................................................................................43Defining Silence........................................................................................................43
Quantitative Definition..........................................................................................43Estimation of Typical Response Rates..................................................................43
Expression and Perception of Silence........................................................................44A Meta-analysis of Research on Online Responsiveness..........................................44Research Populations.................................................................................................44Summary....................................................................................................................45
Phases of the Proposal...................................................................................................46Resources.......................................................................................................................47Appendices....................................................................................................................55
Appendix 1 – definition of “silence” from the Oxford English Dictionary online edition (OED, 1989)..................................................................................................55Appendix 2 – Copy of Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005.......................................................62
2
“Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving in words evidence of the fact.” George Eliot
Summary
We propose to investigate the way silence is expressed, experienced and interpreted in
text-based computer mediated communication (CMC). Silence has long been a topic of
intensive research in traditional settings, by linguists, communication researchers,
psychologists, scholars of culture and others. Also, the last decade has seen significant
research into the socio-cognitive aspects of human behavior in CMC settings, including
that of lurking (Rafaeli, Ravid, & Soroka, 2004). Nevertheless, very little attention has
been paid to the online manifestations of silence, and to the socio-cognitive aspects of
that behavior.
We wish to build a research infrastructure that will allow the investigation of online
silence. We will start by creating a nomenclature and criteria for defining and measuring
online silence, using quantitative data collected using the unobtrusive measures
approach developed by Webb et al (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 2000). This
work has already started, and its first results will be published in early 2005 (Kalman &
Rafaeli, 2005). In this work we created a responsiveness profile based on the
examination of an unprecedented sample of thousands of email replies. Previous work,
was usually case-based and either probed responsiveness through the reactive method of
personal interviews (Tyler & Tang, 2003) or treated online responsiveness as a side
issue. Here, we were able, through the “windfall” of the confiscation and release of
massive data files of the Enron corporation, to extract detailed behavioral information
without raising privacy and other ethical limitations. The results, which are far more
robust quantitatively than any previous work on online responsiveness, allowed us to
corroborate the findings of Tyler and Tang (2003), extend them, as well as identify a
recurring theme in a variety of datasets, including Enron’s, work on Usenet (Jones,
Ravid, & Rafaeli, 2004), and on Google Answers (Edelman, 2004). This initial work will
be extended by similar investigations, as well as via a meta-analysis of published data
3
about online responsiveness. In addition to chronemics, an attempt will be made to assess
and measure response rates.
Further, we will start investigating the socio-cognitive aspects of online silence by
understanding the ways online silence is created and the reasons it is created. We expect
to focus on an important distinction between two major categories: intentional and
unintentional silence, the former being a result of a decision not to respond, and the
latter being a result of other factors such as a technical mishap, a message missed as a
result of information overload, etc. This distinction is especially pertinent in the case of
online communication, where unintentional silence is believed to be common.
The last socio-cognitive aspect we will investigate is the “receiving end” of silence,
investigating the way online silence is experienced and interpreted. The negative
emotional and physiological effects of online silence have already been documented
(Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), and we will seek to further understand this
aspect of online silence. In this case, too, we expect the attempt to resolve between
intentional and unintentional silence, to be a key component in the interpretation phase,
since this uncertainty is an inherent element in online communication, acknowledged and
taken into consideration by all participants.
The socio-cognitive part of the research is still in its formative stage. Based on previous
work on similar subjects, we expect to use and apply the following theories and their
tools to the research of the expression, experience and interpretation of online silence:
(1) attribution theory, (2) uncertainty reduction theory, (3) media richness theory and
reduced social cues, (4) theory of media synchronicity, and (5) the SIDE model. These
theories and a first take on their applicability to the study of silence in CMC are reviewed
in the following.
A model of a text-based CMC communicative cycle is presented, a few initial hypotheses
are presented, and a list of proposed research methods is offered. In the proposal, we
discuss in detail the methodological challenges in researching a “non-action”, as well as
the conundrums of ethical and privacy issues linked to researching private online
behavior.
4
We expect that the results of the research described here will provide researchers with a
nomenclature for description and discussion of online silence, as well as a methodology
that will allow measuring and characterizing different forms of online silence in various
text-based CMC media. The empirical work will begin by yielding some benchmark
measures for the chronemics and responsiveness levels of popular forms of CMC. We
also expect this research to test the applicability as well as enrich and extend the above-
mentioned theories in the context of CMC, and to further the understanding of social
exclusion, social translucence, and interactional coherence in relation to silence. We
expect the results of the research to suggest practical policies and technological
suggestions that will improve the quality of online communication, since online silence
breaks online interactivity, and thus hinders CMC.
5
“Silence is a fence to wisdom”Untranslatable Hebrew proverb from the Mishna: Avot 13, 3
Introduction
In this research proposal we suggest to investigate the way silence in expressed,
experienced and interpreted in text-based computer mediated communication (CMC).
In the literature survey, we present the extensive body of research about silence in
traditional settings, emphasizing the multifaceted and ambiguous nature of silence. We
then present a summary of our review on online social cognition (Rafaeli, Raban, &
Kalman, 2004 in press), introducing key concepts in social cognition, and focusing on the
emerging field of research into socio-cognitive aspects of the online behavior of people.
We show that the results of this work enhance our understanding of human behavior both
online and offline, by challenging, enriching and expanding existing socio-cognitive
theories. Next, we examine the role of chronemics and time in interpersonal
communication, outline the literature on response times and responsiveness online, and
review literature that touches on the negative effects of online irresponsiveness,
cyberostracism and online reticence.
Following the literature review, we present the research question: How is silence
expressed, experienced and perceived in text-based CMC? The importance of answering
this question stems from the fact that online silence is a ubiquitous and annoying
disruptor of both personal and organizational communication processes. The answers are
also expected to further our understanding of online socio-cognitive issues. We look at
the constituents of the research question: defining and measuring online silence;
exploring the reasons for the creation of online silence, with a special distinction between
intentional and unintentional silence; understanding the way online silence is experienced
and interpreted, and the way this interpretation might affect the reactions of persons who
experience online silence. We detail a few of our hypotheses in relation to the expression
and experiencing of online silence, as well as present a model of a typical text-based
CMC communication cycle, which illustrates the various stages at which silence can be
6
"שתיקה ,לחוכמה סייג"
created, both intentionally and unintentionally. We acknowledge the fact that researching
silence, a “non-occurrence”, an absence, is complex, as well as somewhat paradoxical.
Methodologically, we describe our intention to take the “unobtrusive measures”
approach (Webb et al., 2000), attempting not only to use non-reactive measurement tools
whenever possible, but also trying to “triangulate” results collected using varied
measurement tools, non-reactive, as well as reactive tools such as interviews and
questionnaires. In order to define silence and establish its prevalence, we suggest
combining a methodology we recently developed (Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005) which
allows defining online silence in various contexts and media, with a meta-analysis of
research on online responsiveness. We then present a suggestion for reactive as well as
non-reactive tools to describe and possibly explain (in light of existing socio-cognitive
theories) the perceptions and interpretations of online silence, as well as the reactions to
it. In all of our methodology we propose practical solutions to the inherent difficulty of
measuring something which is an absence, a response that was not created, a non-event.
In summary, our work proposes to take silence, a phenomenon that has been researched
in traditional settings by various disciplines (linguistics, sociology, communication), and
research its online manifestations. Initial, laboratory based research, has already shown
that the online manifestation of silence can be a powerful phenomenon, and our hope is to
extend this work into the field, and create a methodological infrastructure and a
conceptual framework that will allow the investigation of silence in the era of CMC.
7
“Do not the most moving moments of our lives find us without words?” Marcel Marceau
Literature Survey
Online silence is an online communicative behavior. In this literature survey we present
the current state of research on silence and on social cognition, thus presenting relevant
aspects of three disciplines that provide foundations for our proposed research:
communication, linguistics and social psychology. After presenting the background on
silence and on social cognition, we look more closely at online social cognition, as well
as present the concept of chronemics, a concept from the field of non-verbal
communication, which researches communicative cues related to time. Lastly we present
research that touches, either directly or indirectly, issues related to online responsiveness
and irresponsiveness.
Silence
“Silence is to speech as the white of this paper is to this print” said Bruneau (1973), in an
effort to capture the ubiquity and the centrality of silence in communication, while also
acknowledging that silence is treated by most people as an insignificant background, a
meaningless default, and a useless emptiness. Like other forms of nonverbal
communication, silence is central to communication since how something is said
communicates at least as much as what is being said (Jaworski, 1999). Like the empty
page, which carries little meaning without graphic symbols, and the graphic symbols
which can’t exist without a substrate, so do silence and speech coexist in a mutual
dependence, each one providing the context, and thus the meaning, to the other. In
addition to the speech that surrounds it, silence need also be understood in other contexts,
such as other nonverbal signs as well as in the context of culture (Braithwaite, 1999).
Because it is so context dependent, silence can express and be interpreted as expressing a
wide range of meanings. The scope is so wide that actually silence can, in different
contexts, mean opposites. Jaworski (1999) gives as an example Jensen’s work (Jensen,
1973) where five functions of silence which can have contrasting, positive and negative
values are described:
8
1. A linkage function: Silence may bond two (or more) people or it may separate
them.
2. An affecting function: Silence may heal (over time) or wound.
3. A revelation function: Silence may make something known to a person (self
exploration) or it may hide information from others.
4. A judgmental function: Silence may signal assent and favor or it may signal
dissent and disfavor.
5. An activating function: Silence may signal deep thoughtfulness (work) or it may
signal mental inactivity.
Another example Jaworski gives is the work of Lebra (1987) where on the one hand
reticence is interpreted as a sign of honesty, sincerity and straightforwardness, but on the
other hand it is associated with concealing the truth. Silence amongst young spouses in
the Japanese culture is an expression of affection, while in the same society silence is
used to express social defiance, disagreement with a person, anger and hatred. In
Bruneau’s work (1973) one can find additional examples of contrasting meanings of
silence: as an empowering as well as an oppressive tool, as a promoter of interpersonal
closeness, as well as a sign of aggressive alienation, as a respectful act, as well as a way
to signal disrespect. Silence can signal the end of an interaction with a clear finality, as
well as represent closeness and intimacy. The polite behavior of a person joining an
English group is to join in silence, while the same behavior will be considered
inappropriate and impolite in a Mediterranean country like Greece (Sifianou, 1997). In
educational settings silence can be a sign of active learning and concentration, as well as
of idleness and ignorance (Jaworski, 1999). In an organizational context, silence can be
attributed to lack of motivation and isolationism, while it actually originates in stress and
ambiguous communication (Jenkins, 2000).
The many possible interpretations of silence, compounded by the fact that many of these
possible interpretations are at odds with each other, make silence a topic which is
difficult to categorize and define, and consequently difficult to research. A definition is
elusive and quite futile since “We are likely…to sense the strangeness, frustrations, and
9
ambiguities of silence no matter how we define the concept. Since silence is a sort of
absence of something, it suggests a potential… Concepts of the sort of silence, then, may
be peculiarly difficult if one’s purpose is to objectify the state, that is, to say that it is
something” (Scott, 1993, pg 11). Even language itself is an obstacle to clearly defining
silence, since the English language does not distinguish between two important types of
silence, which are described by at least two words in some languages. The first definition
the Oxford English Dictionary (OED, 1989) (see appendix 1) gives to silence is (1a)
“The fact of abstaining or forbearing from speech or utterance (sometimes with reference
to a particular matter); the state or condition resulting from this; muteness, reticence,
taciturnity”. In German this type of silence would be “schweigen”, and in Hebrew
“shtika”. The second definition provided is (2a) “The state or condition when nothing is
audible; absence of all sound or noise; complete quietness or stillness; noiselessness. In
German this type of silence would be “stille, and in Hebrew “dmama” or “dumia”. Its
closest equivalent in English is “stillness”. Definition 3b which we will later propose to
adopt for the purpose of the present research is “Neglect or omission to write (about
something); failure to communicate or reply”, and would also be translated in German
into “schweigen” and in Hebrew into “shtika”.
Some of the confusion over the meaning of silence stems from the fact that silence has
been researched within the confines of a few different disciplines. Jaworski (1997) looks
at silence in a multidisciplinary manner, as a linguistic, discoursal, literary, social,
cultural, spiritual and meta-communicative phenomena. Each of the disciplines looks at
silence with a different toolset, and the resulting confusion adds to the difficulty of
comprehending this essentially ambiguous subject. Despite the risk of inconsistency
stemming from these difficulties, we would like to present a few classification systems
suggested for categorizing various types of silence. Bruneau (1973) defines three forms
of silence: Psycholinguistic Silence, Interactive Silence and Socio-cultural Silence.
Psycholinguistic Silence, such as pauses which slow down speech while it is being
created, are a result of either the need of the speaker for extra time to perform the
linguistic tasks, or to give the listener time to process the speech effectively. Interactive
Silences, such as the pauses that allow turn-taking in dyads or in small groups, are mutual
silences shared by the members of the dyad or of the small group, until one or more of
10
the parties chooses to break the silence. Socio-cultural Silence, such as the silence during
acts of religious worship, is silence used by entire social and cultural orders in specific
situations. Poyatos (2002) lists and categorizes many forms of silence (and stillness) at
the human level (language, paralanguage, audible kinesics, other body sounds,
direct/indirect acts upon objects/substances), animal, cultural environment and natural
environment. Every form of silence is presented as a silent alternative to a specific sound,
and next to its corollaries of movement and stillness. For example, silent footsteps can
alternatively be noisy, and feet may either move or remain still. Kurzon (1995) looks at
silence in the context of “the right of silence” and analyses it from the point of view of
“intention” and “ability”. A silent response could be a result of the lack of ability to speak
(either due to ignorance or to psychological disabilities such as shyness or
embarrassment) or of the “ability not to speak”, or “ability not to say anything”:
intentional silence. An interesting and diverse list of “types of silence” can be extracted
from the index to Jaworski’s interdisciplinary book (Jaworski, 1997) and consists of the
following types: absolute, acoustic, antecedent, anterior, arbitrary, contemplative,
displayed, gustatory, inter and intra turn, olfactory, spiritual, static, surrogate, tactile,
temporal and visual.
The controversial “spiral of silence” theory was developed by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann
(1991), claiming that people who hold a minority view are less likely to express it in
public, due to fear of isolation. This reticence results in a spiral resulting in silencing
minority views, a process which is accelerated by mass media.
It is clear that the nomenclature of silence is so extensive and diverse, that it is impossible
to fit “online silence” into one clear category. Silence in CMC can be intentional or
unintentional; it can be psycholinguistic, interactive or socio-cultural; it can be arbitrary
contemplative, visual, and so on. In this work, we suggest to focus on one paradigmatic
type of silence, the one which is represented in definition 3b from the Oxford English
Dictionary (OED, 1989): “Neglect or omission to write (about something); failure to
communicate or reply”. This definition covers situations which we find as the most
commonplace and intuitive examples of online silence or stillness: an unanswered email
message, a posting to an online forum (e.g. chat forum, Usenet, online classroom) which
11
does not receive a response, or an unanswered instant message. It leaves for later research
forms of online silence such as large white spaces between paragraphs in online
messages, empty postings, the silence in online synchronous audiovisual events, empty
spaces in web pages, outdated and unavailable links, etc.
Online Social Cognition and Chronemics
Social Cognition2
Social cognition (SC) deals with the mutual influences of cognition on social life, and of
social environments and processes on cognition. Cognition is fundamentally influenced
by the social environment (Levine & Resnick, 1993). Research on social facilitation,
social loafing, social roles, and mental representations has shown distinct social
influences on cognitive abilities and task performance. SC is about the cognitive
underpinnings of social behavior (Devine, Hamilton, & Ostrom, 1994). SC studies how
social structures and social processes are mentally represented, and how social interaction
is important for the development and practice of cognition. Individuals are viewed as
being engaged most of the time in information processing. Information is encoded from
a social context, is interpreted, elaborated, evaluated, inferred and attributed. Processed
information, or knowledge, is later used in judgment processes and for guiding behavior.
Research into SC shows that judgment and behavior need not always be the result of a
thorough mental process, but rather the result of short-cuts known as heuristics. SC draws
from both social and cognitive psychology. It deals with how people make sense of
themselves and of others. Some refer to social structures as concepts or schema (Kunda,
1999). One key theory related to the way social inferences are made is attribution theory
(Heider, 1958), asserting that people constantly answer a need to make sense of the world
they live in by attributing traits to others. The traits are attributed by drawing inferences
from the behaviors of others. Attribution is a three-step process: Perception of the action,
judgment of intention, and, finally, attribution of disposition (Griffin, 2003). Behaviors
can, for example, be attributed to internal or external factors, to controllable or
uncontrollable factors, and to stable or unstable causes. The attribution is based on
antecedents such as prior information about the event and its circumstances, beliefs, and
2 This section is adapted from (Rafaeli et al., 2004 in press)
12
motivations. The results of the attribution can influence not only behavior, but also
produce emotional or affective reactions, as well as alter expectations about self and
about others (DeJoy, 1994). An interesting angle on attribution theory looks at the early
stage of personal relationships, and emphasizes that attempting to explain the behavior of
others at these early stages is fraught with uncertainty. Berger’s uncertainty reduction
theory (URT) (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) proposes eight axioms to explain the
connection between uncertainty and eight variables: verbal communication, nonverbal
warmth, information seeking, self disclosure, reciprocity, similarity, liking and shared
networks (Griffin, 2003).
The basic social structures mentioned in the literature describe person traits or perception
(Fiske, 1993). These include attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes, implicit personality theory,
and salience. The main social processes in SC research have been attribution, attitude
change, impression formation, social comparison, decision making, social construction
of reality or joint sense making (Fulk, 1993).
Social cognition is not limited to the study of individual cognition and how it is affected
by the social environment. SC impacts the way in which individuals and cultures
perceive, define, and interpret media in general, and in our special case, the Internet.
Social Cognition Online3
Research on SC among individuals, dyads, and groups has focused on behavior and
perception in physical environment (Fiske, 1993; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). When turning
to the virtual, it is tempting to set up a contrast with the “natural” way that people
interact, i.e. face-to-face (Chapanis, 1975; Lantz, 2001). The question then is, of course,
if face-to-face should be treated as the benchmark against which all innovations and new
contexts need be judged? One prime example of elevating face-to-face traditional set-ups
to ideal/standard status is the media richness approach (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Media
richness theory argues that task performance will be improved when capabilities of the
media (cues, feedback, personal focus, and language variety) are matched to task
ambivalence and uncertainty. In this approach face-to-face communication is considered
3 This section is adapted from (Rafaeli et al., 2004 in press)
13
the richest communication medium in a hierarchy followed by the telephone, electronic
mail, letter, note, memo, special report, and finally, flier and bulletin. Some observations
and predictions are made regarding the propriety and efficiency of different media.
Specifically, this theory suggests that performance in equivocal tasks would be better
when using “rich” media. According to this theory, in the case of unequivocal tasks,
performance would be better if leaner media are used. Unfortunately, empirical data to
support media richness theory fall somewhat short (Dennis, Kinney, & Hung, 1999;
Dennis & Valacich, 1999; El-Shinnawy & Markus, 1997; Morris & Ogan, 1996). An
interesting theory which developed from a critical examination of media richness theory
is the theory of media synchronicity (Dennis & Valacich, 1999) which proposes that
media choice is influenced by five media capabilities (feedback, symbol variety,
parallelism, rehearsability, reprocessability) to support two fundamental communication
processes (conveyance and convergence).
It is important to note that face-to-face interactions are neither an ideal nor should be
treated as an ultimate standard. SC develops in a variety of loci/media. Previous research
has already contested the standard of face-to-face asserting that interpersonal interactions
and social influences affect media choice (Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfield, 1990), and online
relationships have been shown to be healthy, and a complement to face-to-face
relationships (Peris et al., 2002), and based on unique information seeking strategies
(Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002). With the Internet there is the
possibility that face-to-face be demoted from its ostensibly classic preordained
position/status as ultimate yardstick. The Internet itself is a plurality of media operated by
diverse technologies which constitute a culture or a social space in its own right. In fact,
the “richness” of CMC is a variable, not a characteristic.
The CMC social space is characterized variously. Slater (2002) proposes four properties
which describe the online environment as a space in its own right:
Virtuality – a computerized representation of reality. Spatiality – the network is a space
in its own, not parallel to real life space, and cannot be mapped onto offline spaces.
Disembedding – a community can be spatially dispersed. Geography has all but lost its
14
meaning to participants of online communities. Disembodiment – most Internet
communication is textual and often anonymous. Slater's framework stresses the fact that
people do not have to reveal any of the offline cues used for SC such as age, sex, race and
location. The online identity can be very different than the offline identity.
Impression formation in CMC
The perception of the “other” online and how the impression of those we interact with
online is formed has been a focus of research from the first days of online
communications. The initial focus was on the gap between the impressions formed
online, and impressions in “real life”, with an emphasis on anecdotal cases of fraud and
deception. This approach follows a historical pattern of focusing on the sensational, as
well as on the faults and deficiencies of a new medium in relation to traditional
communication media. Similar claims were made historically with the introduction of
early electric media (Standage, 1998) and in social science research about the first days
of telephone and telegraph (Pool, 1983). Much of the early work focused on the reduced
social cues in comparison to face-to-face communication. The reduced social cues
approach highlighted the surprise and disappointment that arose when those who formed
the impressions were confronted with “real life”. These works concluded that online
impression formation is faulty and wrought with stereotypical and prejudiced
assumptions used to “fill in the blanks” (Albright, 2001) of the reduced social cues, and
terms such as “fluid identities” (Turkle, 1997) were used to warn about the unsound and
shifting sands of CMC.
In retrospect it is clear that many of the early works on CMC may have failed to
distinguish between the various contexts of online activities. Some popular activities such
as MOOs and MUD were purposely structured for “play” purposes, wherein
impersonation and identity experimentation were the expressed purpose of these settings.
Such environments flourished on university campuses among students, close to the eye
and attention of researchers. This, too, may have given these contexts some increased
salience. No wonder that a “reality check” in such cases reveals that the (generally)
young and often experimentally minded people behind the screen names are different
than imagined. Reaching general conclusions about human behavior online based on
15
these environments is somewhat similar to generalizing about human character after
observing actors perform a play on stage.
As indicated above, impersonation, (a form of self-presentation), ranges from simply
using an alias name in order to save typing or time or avoid revealing one's real name
through assuming an identity for playful purposes, and, finally, to creating a complete
false identity in order to engage in criminal or terrorist activity. The latter form was
given the most media attention but the other two forms of self-presentation are by far
more widely used. All these forms of self-presentations indicate a high degree of
awareness of others, your own and others’ perception, combined with a high degree of
understanding of the computerized and networked environment.
Research shows that senders often try to optimize their self-presentation by mentioning
information they perceive as impressive, while holding back information which is less so
(Walther & Burgoon, 1992). The receiver in the online case sometimes idealizes the
sender, “filling in the blanks” with information that tends to be too rosy (Tidwell &
Walther, 2002). Such a combination can result in disillusion when eventually a face-to-
face meeting occurs. This disenchantment received much attention in literature dealing
with online dating and online relationships (Turkle, 1997), but is apparent in other online
contexts too (Rouse & Haas, 2003). As Rouse and Haas point out, inaccuracies in
personality perception of online “others” are mainly a result of three important
differences between Internet-mediated factors and face-to-face communication: The first
is that physical appearance has a less meaningful effect, the second is that people may
behave different online than in a face-to-face situation, and third, that online there is a
heightened level of ambiguity due to the lack of vocal inflection and facial expression. In
contrast, it is important to point out that such assertions about the inferiority of online vs.
offline impression formation ignore some more basic questions. For example, is the
ability to present an idealized self online similar to the ability to idealize one's physical
appearance through the choice of clothing, haircut, makeup, accessories and even plastic
surgery or over polite behavior? Are humans gradually becoming more skilled at
detecting signs of such online attempts, integrating them into the emerging impression,
just as they would detect and interpret an attempt to conceal physical imperfections in
16
traditional offline interaction? Is the ambiguity of an online smiley or online silence
analogous to some extent to the different interpretation a smile or silence can have in an
Eastern culture like Japan in comparison to its meaning in a Western country like
England? Are some people better at putting on an online “poker face”, while others'
“online face” is easily interpreted by competent users? Is the reaction to a slick and
overly polite used cars salesperson offering us a once in a lifetime deal if we make our
minds immediately, before someone else grabs it, similar to the reaction to “spam”
promising us the opportunity to make thousands of dollars a month working from home
in our spare time? We contend it may be too early in the evolution of human online
communication to simply conclude that the ability to discern authenticity online is
inferior to face to face. Rather, it is important to focus on understanding the dynamics
and evolution of the emergence of the human capability to communicate online, on the
way skilled users are using it to fine-tune their perceptions, or to influence the way they
are perceived. Reeves and Nass (2000) point out in their discussion of the “perceptual
bandwidth” of computer mediated communication: “… the assumption that more is
always less is misguided. An increase in the breadth and depth of media representations
certainly turns up the volume knob on perceptual responses, but greater presence does not
translate into greater efficacy or desirability; intensity does not equal quality.”
Once the issue of the superiority of face-to-face over CMC is removed, the questions that
arise are questions that focus on aspects of SC online, and mainly questions of what
influences the way users translate the special social cues of CMC (especially text-based
CMC) into impressions, what influences these impressions, and how do CMC users try to
influence the way they are perceived by others. Online impression formation occurs in
stages. First impressions are formed based on very initial signs such as the email
addresses or the screen names as well as on the context of the online occurrence
(Wallace, 1999). As the interaction progresses, more information accumulates: the
sentence structure, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, use of capital letters, typographical
marks such as emoticons, as well as self-testimonials about matters such as gender, age,
location, occupation, hobbies and marital status. Additional elements that can influence
this impression are less linked to pure linguistic aspects and can include the length of the
message, the amount devoted to talking about oneself, number of opinions expressed,
17
level of friendliness, the content of the message, strength of expressed opinions, (Savicki,
Kelley, & Oesterreich, 1999), as well as non-verbal cues such as response time (Tyler &
Tang, 2003; Walther & Tidwell, 1995).
How do all of these cues translate into an impression of the “other” online? As in offline
situations, this process is in essence inductive, and may be based on social stereotypes,
categorizing people based on the signals they give off. Success of this process depends on
factors such as the context of the interaction, the interpreter’s capabilities and information
sources, the self presentation of the “other” and his or her willingness to present
truthfully. Cognitive psychology has developed a keen interest in the introspective
notion of heuristics. How do people form impressions, perceptions, cognitions and
attitudes by relying on shortcuts. Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) explains
a wide variety of perceptual and attitudinal peculiarities of human choice, preference and
behavior. Much of prospect theory has been developed in traditional contexts. How does
prospect theory translate to the online arena? It seems that, at least in the case of one
effect, the endowment effect (Thaler, 1980), the predictions that applied to the physical,
tangential world work well for the abstract, virtual and online milieu. In their experiments
(Raban & Rafaeli, 2004; Rafaeli & Raban, 2003) for instance, found that people apply
similar decision making biases and heuristics in online contexts. Consistency in behavior
overpowers opportunity for change. Such attempts to understand the online manifestation
of established theories (such as socio-cognitive theories) are imperative to both
advancing human behavior online, as well as to expanding the scope and hopefully
validity of the theories.
One of the theories dealing with the way these scarce cues are translated into impressions
is the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) developed by Spears and
Lea (1994), theorizing that these limited cues undergo an “over-attribution” process,
which may also result in a stereotypical assignment of attributes to group members
(Chenault, 1998). Even few social cues can make a significant impact on the quality of
impressions people form of each other, and it is through interpersonal and “intimate”
contact that people are able to cross the boundaries of ethnocentrism and stereotypes
(Tanis & Postmes, 2003).
18
Perception of self online
In addition to understanding how others are perceived online, it is also important to
understand how people perceive themselves when online. Self perception or self concept
may seem fixed or constant. In fact, self perception is very malleable. SC research has
identified a variety of selves: Self concept varies in private versus public circumstances,
it varies with the different roles we assume and contexts or situations we experience.
Thus, self-concept is dynamic with attention focused on the context-specific self rather
than on one 'global' self (Devine et al., 1994). Sherry Turkle in a seminal article (Turkle,
1980) provided computers and networks’ impact on perception of self with a slogan that
captures the variability of self-perception, perhaps amplified, by computers and networks.
In "Computers as Rorscharch" she says that users project meaning to computerized
activities rather than being passive recipients. This sentiment was then echoed in much
HCI work on user-centered computing (Shneiderman, 1998), and naturally percolated
into the very design of systems and networks. The projected meaning is influenced by a
variety of environmental or social effects, in addition to the personality of the actor.
Further research in Turkle's tradition evolved in the landmark book "The Second Self"
and in "Life on the Screen" (Turkle, 1984, 1997). The Internet provides numerous
opportunities to affect what Goffman would call “the presentation of self” (Donath, 1998;
Stone, 1991). The construction of a personal home page, the introduction one is expected
to make when entering an online forum, the short descriptions many provide as a rite of
inclusion into various social software arenas, and the profiles one accumulates for oneself
willingly or not on a variety of online systems, all influence presentation of self. In a
work on response time to email messages, the researchers (Tyler & Tang, 2003) found
evidence that email users used response time as a tool to influence the way they present
their “responsiveness profile”.
Groups online
An additional area of interest in online impression formation is the way people perceive
themselves as members of online groups. What are online groups? Many terms have been
used to describe influential Internet based interactions between several participants,
including “virtual communities” (Rheingold, 1993), “virtual teams” (Lipnack & Stamps,
19
2000) and “virtual groups” (Wallace, 1999). Here, we will use the more generic term,
virtual groups. The tools used by people to congregate online are diverse, and include
email-list forums, synchronous chat systems such as IRC, asynchronous discussion
forums, MUDs and MOOs, Usenet newsgroups, virtual classrooms, web logs, and
groupware tools. Some of these are very rich media, allowing real-time transmission of
audio, video and text, as well as online application sharing, while others are very
rudimentary, and based only on the asynchronous transmission of ASCII text. People
participate in online groups for work, education and leisure, acquiring, disseminating and
sharing information and knowledge, collaborating, and socializing.
Initially, there was a lot of excitement about the possibilities opened by online virtual
groups, with the combination of a widely dispersed but closely-knit community. A good
example is The Well, established in 1985 and described in the book The Virtual
Community (Rheingold, 1993). At about the same time, virtual communities were
contrasted with “real” communities, while mourning the damage inflicted by
“Technopoly” (Postman, 1992). Later the term “Internet Paradox” was coined (Kraut et
al., 1998), claiming that the Internet actually reduces the level of social involvement of its
users. An additional element in this process of disillusion was the accumulation of online
communities that disintegrated, or simply stopped functioning. Unlike “real world” social
connections which can disappear without leaving a trace, online communities often leave
behind artifacts (Jones, 1997) which can confuse people who might attempt to join or
interact with such communities, only to discover that they are totally silent (Wallace,
1999). The disillusion was supported by reports of discussions in online groups that
resulted in flaming and polarization (Spears, Russell, & Lee, 1990). When put into
perspective such a dichotomous debate becomes meaningless (Etzioni & Etzioni, 1999;
Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Online groups are as “real” as any other groups, and are simply
different in some aspects from traditional groups. Online groups are social units in which
the participants are interdependent, and behave according to explicit or implicit social
norms. Online groups show, just like other groups, both examples of social compensation
as well as social loafing, and even effects such as crowding and deindividuation (Spears,
Postmes, Lea, & Wolbert, 2002) have been documented.
20
“Lurking” is a special form of SC in groups. Participation in online groups, such as forum
discussions, is not symmetric. Usually, a small number of participants contribute. A much
larger number remain receivers. Often, reticent receivers are named “lurkers” (Nonnecke
& Preece, 2000). Receivers who remain passive are either intimating a social cue – or at
the very least are understood as imparting a message. Thus, lurking is not just a behavior.
It is a perception and is perceived by others in social contexts. Lurking has been a social
and cognitive concern since the early years of public CMC. Even in participatory virtual
communities, many people limit their participation to reading and never post themselves.
The reported proportion of lurkers varies from around 90% (Katz, 2003; Mason, 1999) to
around 50% (Nonnecke & Preece, 2000; Soroka, Jacovi, & Ur, 2003). Lurking usually
means "lying in wait", often with malicious intent. But interestingly enough, “lurking”
does not have to carry a negative connotation. The Merriam-Webster dictionary
definition of the verb "lurk" has one unexpected meaning – "to persist in staying". Thus
lurkers can be defined as a persistent but silent audience. Lurkers have been recognized
by many researchers as an important and integral part of any community. Rafaeli and
Sudweeks (1997) point out that though lurkers are an important part of any online group
there is little information about their activity. Whittaker et al. (Whittaker, Terveen, Hill,
& Cherny, 1998) also acknowledge lurking as a very popular activity among virtual
community participants that leaves no traces.
The reasons for lurking range from concerns for privacy, through respect for others’ time
and attention limits, to those rooted in personality (Rafaeli et al., 2004). In any case, both
the reasons for lurking and its outcomes are central to the understanding of SC among the
less salient and available – but probably more numerous -- participants in online social
behavior.
Online social presence
Social presence is the awareness of others’ being there. As early as 1976, Short et al.
(Short & Christie, 1976) identified social presence as crucial to the understanding of
mediated behavior. Presence was postulated to affect trust, compliance, attraction,
motivation, and more. More recent work on virtual presence looks at virtual presence as
both an independent and a dependent variable. As computerized systems and networks
21
are designed by humans, the degree to which they elicit a sense of presence is an
important variable. Thus, for instance, Biocca and Levy (1995) experiment with the
interaction effect between user factors and media factors on feelings of social presence .
They provide strong evidence for human's automatic social responses to artificial
representations possessing humanistic properties such as language and personality.
Clearly the more immersive CMC systems become, with a wider range of sensory and
cognitive appeals and a longer average exposure people have to these systems, the degree
to which such systems are actually social in the full sense of the word comes into focus.
Lombard and Ditton (1997) remind us that virtual presence might be an illusion or a
hoax, and that its effects are worthy of further examination.
Interactivity
One central driving force in the induction of computers into our social circles is the
notion of interactivity. Interactivity refers to the extent to which communication reflects
back on itself, feeds on and responds to the past. Interactivity is the degree of mutuality
and reciprocation present in a communication setting. The term interactivity is widely
used to refer to the way content expresses contact, and communication evolves into
community. And, of course, interactivity is a major option in governing the relation
between humans and computers (Rafaeli, 1984; Rafaeli, 1988; Rafaeli, 2004).
Interactivity is an essential characteristic of effective online communication, and has an
important role in keeping message threads and their authors together. Interactive
communication (online as well as in more traditional settings) is engaging, and loss of
interactivity will result in a breakdown of the communicative process. Research of
rhythms in email and other CMC media resulted in claims that text-only CMC is
“Interactionally Incoherent”: disjointed, without clear turns, and in general “chaotic”.
But, as noted by Herring (1999), text-only CMC is extremely popular, despite obstacles
such as disrupted turn adjacency and lack of simultaneous feedback. The online
interaction is highly desired, and almost addictive in nature (Caplan, 2003; Morahan-
Martin & Schumacher, 2000).
22
Chronemics4
Time and social interaction
A key non-verbal cue affecting online impression formation and communication is
Chronemics: time related messages, such as those conveyed by timestamps (Liu, Ginther,
& Zelhart, 2001; Walther & Tidwell, 1995). Chronemics research studies the role of time
in communication, and the importance of chronemics in interpersonal communication is a
direct result of the key role of time, and specifically of temporal rhythms as underlying
organizing factors in social life in general, and in communication in particular. As
Scheflen points out (1982) the discovery of interactional rhythms was a part of the
maturation of the understanding of human communication. Communicators need to act in
synchrony, and synchronization is based on timing and sequencing. Feldstein (1982)
focuses on the importance of temporal patterning in face to face impression formation,
where cues such as speech rates, tempo, pauses and the frequency of talking turns
influence and reflect the way the participants in the conversation perceive each other. A
key concept in understanding the interplay between time and social behavior in
“Entrainment”, defined by Bluedorn (2002) as “… the process in which the rhythms
displayed by two or more phenomena become synchronized, with one of the rhythms
often being more powerful or dominant and capturing the rhythm of the other.” Probably
the most powerful entraining mechanism we know is the light and darkness cycle, which
affects natural rhythms such as sleep, as well as social rhythms such as working hours.
The strength of this powerful entraining principle is evident when these natural rhythms
are forced to resynchronize following rapid travel across time zones – commonly known
as “jet lag”. Examples of strong biological entraining rhythms are the menstrual cycle and
circadian rhythms. Through entrainment, people learn what rhythms to expect: they learn
that finding an academic in the office is much less likely in August than it is in October,
and that finding a parking place in a commercial zone is far easier at 7 am than it is four
hours later. Moreover, people learn that divergence from these patterns is a sign that
something may be wrong: if an acknowledgement to the receipt of an academic
manuscript to a journal is expected to be a few weeks, once a month has passed, the
researcher will probably inquire what went wrong at the journal office. Another example 4 Adapted from (Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005)
23
given by Bluedorn is the expected time to receive a reply on an email. An excessively
quick response (within seconds of delivery) is usually a sign of something gone wrong:
an “undeliverable” response or an auto-reply.
Online chronemics
Chronemics also plays an important role in online communications, and is clearly an
example of an online non-verbal communicative cue (Walther & Tidwell, 1995). Despite
the initial surprise that a “reduced cues” medium such as text based CMC can convey
subtle “non-verbal” cues, it is clear that chronemics are a part of CMC, and
understanding the role of chronemics is key to understanding CMC (Lane, 2004). For
example, it is a central part in the explanation to the apparent paradox raised by Herring
(1999) regarding the interactional incoherence of CMC (see Interactivity section above).
From a chronemics point of view, text-only CMC allows interactional rhythms not
available in other communicative forms, such as multiple simultaneous exchanges.
Moreover, text-only CMC allows people to achieve “hyperpersonal communication”
“… that is more socially desirable than we tend to experience in parallel face-to-face
interaction.” (Walther, 1996). One of the key principles behind this enhanced social
desirability is that when the qualities of CMC are put to good use, CMC allows people to
“disentrain” their own rhythms from those of others, without losing the ability to continue
effective communication. Thus, people are able to keep their activities synchronized,
without the common requirement that the activities be also simultaneous. An important
example of a corporate-wide effort to enhance the disentraining elements of email
communication is the “Yourtime” initiative in Intel corporation (ITsharenet.org, 2004).
We argue that Chronemics should play a central role in enhancing the translucence of
systems. Efforts to increase the social translucence (Erickson & Kellogg, 2000) of CMC
are still exploratory in nature (Lockerd, 2002), and raise technological, social and ethical
dilemmas (Zweig & Webster, 2002). However, Chronemic measures such as response
time in CMC, its expression, mapping and interpretation are among the more promising
and perhaps least threatening of the potential translucence cues.
24
Silence in CMC
One can almost say that research has been too silent about silence in CMC. Nevertheless,
a significant amount of work published about CMC touches on issues related to silence
and irresponsiveness, or at least on the issues of response time to online messages. These
will be reviewed in the next two sections, under the framework of a simple model of a
typical text-based CMC communication cycle. This model, presented in Diagram 1,
simplifies a dyadic text-based online communicative cycle such as email into seven
stages. Each stage can result in a continuation of the cycle, or in its disruption. In the
latter case, the result will usually be silence. This model echoes the
communication/persuasion model developed by McGuire (1981).
25
Diagram 1
Typical text-based CMC communication cycle
26
Yes
Not now
4) Message read
5) Inferred a response expectation
2) Message Arrived
3) MessageOpened
7) Create response/message
1) Send message
6) Decision to respond
No
Not at all
Recipient wants other party to know the decision not to respondRecipient does not want other party to know the decision not to respondRecipient is indifferent to what the other party knows about the decision not to respond
No
No
No
No
No
In our work we will elaborate the stages of this cycle, as well as analyze the various
occurrences that can occur at each of the stages. For example, in stage 1 email silence can
be caused by: a writer who writes a reply but decides not to send it because s/he is not
happy with the result; by a writer who writes a reply but wants to take time to consider it,
or have a later look at it for possible modifications; by a writer who thinks s/he has sent
the email, but in fact it is left in the outbox and does not go out (for example due to a
mistake in offline email synchronization); by a writer who mistakenly places the email in
the draft folder and does not notice the mistake; by a fault in the server of the sender
which results in no release of the email; and by a fault in routing to the intended recipient.
Stage 6 is unique for two reasons. It is a fork with three, rather than two, possible
outcomes. The two disruptive options are then subdivided into additional categories,
based on the aims of the person making the decision not to respond, whether s/he wishes
the (intentional) decision to be perceived as intentional or as unintentional.
This model can also be applied, possibly with some adaptation, to other online media. For
example, in synchronous chat, stage 1 silence can be the result of a message written but
without hitting “enter” (intentionally or unintentionally), of mistakenly erasing the
message while sending it away, and not noticing that an empty line was transmitted, or of
a failure of the sender’s computer, or of the computer connection to the Internet, just
before the sending.
It is important to note that at each of the stages, four factors may be involved: the user,
the client, the server, and the network. Each of these factors is involved in the various
stages, and the multiplicity of factors involved, as well as the various interactions
between them, add to the inherent uncertainty of online silence.
Online Irresponsiveness
Online silence and irresponsiveness have already been implied in theories and studies of
online interactivity (Rafaeli, 1988; Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). Anecdotal evidence to
the need to acknowledge silence as a factor in human-computer communication is nicely
27
described by Nicholas Negroponte from MIT’s Media Lab in work that was carried out
already in 1978 (Negroponte, 1994). A key area of specific research on irresponsiveness,
already described above (See Groups online section above), is the research of “lurking”
(Nonnecke & Preece, 2000; Rafaeli et al., 2004). Obviously, lurking is a special form of
online silence: usually people post into forums expecting to receive a response to their
messages. Lurkers who read and do not respond are, in essence, silent, but do they fulfill
the definition of silence we chose for the purpose of this work: Neglect or omission to
write (about something); failure to communicate or reply? On the one hand, they are
silent and do not respond. On the other hand, it is obviously expected that many of the
readers will not post a response to each and every message posted to the group, otherwise
threads will become endless, and the number of posted messages will swell
exponentially, especially as the number of participants increases. In addition, lurking
focuses on people who never take active part in the discussion, while silence focuses on
specific instances of irresponsiveness. Thus, lurking is a manifestation of silence in a
group situation, similar in many respects to a face-to-face situation involving an
observing audience, with varying degrees of audience involvement. The silence looked
into in the work described in this proposal is more focused (though not exclusively) on
dyadic relationships.
Cramton (2001) documented the important disruptive effect silence can have on teams
attempting to collaborate online. The work shows that the difficulty of interpreting online
silence leads to uncertainty in some cases, and to wrong conclusions in other cases:
“Over the course of the project, it became clear that silence had meant all of the
following at one time or another: I agree. I strongly disagree. I am indifferent. I am out of
town. I am having technical problems. I do not know how to address this sensitive issue. I
am busy with other things. I did not notice your question. I did not realize that you
wanted a response”. This finding reflects the same difficulties and ambiguity linked to
silence in traditional settings, as described before (see section Silence above). Difficulty
interpreting the meaning of silence was identified in Cramton’s work as one of the most
common problems, negatively affecting 100% of the researched teams, and the reasons
included misinterpreting silence as consent when it stemmed from disagreement or
28
inattention, and silence due to technical problems or faulty information misinterpreted as
intentional nonparticipation.
Early research on the “spiral of silence” in CMC has been carried out by McDevitt et al.
(McDevitt, Kiousis, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003). The work was performed in the context of
chat room discussions of an abortion related scenario, and did not reveal evidence to
support the model in this specific setting.
Several tools have been devised to assist people who are interested in tracking the
progress of their sent email, the main purpose of these tools is to remove some of the
uncertainty inherent in this form of communication. If we look at a typical text-based
CMC communication cycle such as the one depicted in Diagram 1, we can map which
areas of this cycle the tools relate to. As an example, we will use two email server
packages: MS-Outlook (Microsoft, 2003), and First Class (OpenText, 2004) and one
email tracking service: Readnotify.com (Readnotify.com, 2004).
Stage MS-Outlook First Class ReadNotify.com1 No Yes Yes2 Yes No No3 Yes Yes Yes4 No No Length of time open5 No No No6 No No No, but will report when reopened7 No Yes No, but will report when reopened
Table 1: email tracking tools and the stages in the communication cycle (Diagram 1) covered by them
It is interesting to see how different mail packages provide varying information, and how
a tool like ReadNotify.com tries to overcome some of the deficiencies of existing email
packages. We plan to conduct a further survey of such tools and their capabilities, as well
as identify areas not covered by existing tools. The systematic mapping of such "blind
spots" of existing technology can assist in identifying developmental needs of future
CMC tools, and improve their sociability and usability (Preece, 2000).
29
Online Responsiveness and Response Times
Other than the above mentioned work on online irresponsiveness, there is a relatively
extensive body of work on online responsiveness, and response times, which also
touches, usually as a matter of marginal interest, on the issue of no response at all,
namely of silence. This work is focused in a few areas: responsiveness and response time
to customers who email an organization (Customer-Respect-Group, 2004; Hirsh, 2002;
Mattila & Mount, 2003; Stellin, 2003; Strauss & Hill, 2001), responses to online surveys
(Lewis, Thompson, Wuensch, Grossnickle, & Cope, in press; Sheehan & McMillan,
1999), a few works on responsiveness to business correspondence (Abbott et al., 2002;
Pitkin & Burmeister, 2002; Tyler & Tang, 2003), and work on response times in
discussions on Usenet (Jones et al., 2004) and to questions posted to the “Google
Answers” website (Edelman, 2004).
A superficial examination of these reports reveals a recurring theme, which was
corroborated by us in detailed work carried out on the responsiveness profile of Enron
employees using email (Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005). You may find a copy of this yet
unpublished work in Appendix 2, and on http://study.haifa.ac.il/~ykalman/PID37522.pdf.
In this work we created a responsiveness profile based on the examination of an
unprecedented sample of thousands of email replies. Previous work, was usually case-
based and either probed responsiveness through the reactive method of personal
interviews (Tyler & Tang, 2003) or treated online responsiveness as a side issue. Here,
we were able, through the “windfall” of the confiscation and release of massive data files
of the Enron corporation, to extract detailed behavioral information without raising
privacy and other ethical limitations. The results, which are far more robust quantitatively
than any previous work on online responsiveness, allowed us to corroborate the findings
of Tyler and Tang (2003), extend them, as well as identify a recurring theme in a variety
of datasets, including Enron’s, work on Usenet (Jones et al., 2004), and on Google
Answers (Edelman, 2004). The recurring theme seems to be a concentration of most of
the responses within a relatively short period of time (usually averaging around one day
in asynchronous media), and a spread of ever increasing response times at a relatively
very low frequency. If the frequency of responses is plotted against the duration until the
30
response, the resulting distribution is highly skewed to the left, with a stretched out and
rapidly diminishing right tail. This distribution was best described, in the Enron dataset,
by a Gamma distribution. We intend to generalize these findings and further corroborate
them by performing a meta-analysis of research reporting response times in CMC, as well
as by additional unobtrusive extraction and analysis of additional responsiveness profiles.
This work comprises the first part of our research question.
31
“The world would be happier if men had the same capacity to be silent that they have to speak”Baruch Spinoza
The Research Question and Its Import
The Research Question
The research question we wish to explore in the dissertation is: How is silence
expressed, experienced and perceived in text-based CMC?
We will start by defining what online silence is. Following that, we will explore the
expression of online silence and try to understand what causes online silence,
distinguishing between the intentional and unintentional creation of online silence.
Lastly, we will explore the receiving end of silence by investigating what is the
experience of silence, and what influences the way this online silence is perceived and
interpreted. We will seek to understand the similarities and differences between the way
silence is experienced and interpreted online, and in traditional, offline settings.
What is Online Silence?
The definition of a concept which embodies uncertainty, whose meaning varies in
different contexts and cultures, and which has been subjected to various disciplines of
research, is inherently difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that silence is
defined by the absence of something (a response, a communication), a lack which can
only be defined once the expected response does not happen. Many attempts have been
made at defining silence in traditional settings, and the definition we have suggested as
the relevant one to CMC is definition 3b from the Oxford English Dictionary: “Neglect or
omission to write (about something); failure to communicate or reply” (OED, 1989). But,
this is not an operational definition and is subject to personal interpretation. An
operational definition should be able to characterize, in a context sensitive manner, the
period of time of irresponsiveness which is long enough to be defined as silence. We
suggest defining it statistically, by measuring typical response times in a specific context,
and by defining silence as a period of no response longer than even very long responses.
We suggest that a silent period longer than 99% of the response times in this specific
32
context will be defined as silence. For example, in the context of our Enron data, not
receiving a response within 20 days will be defined as online silence.
This definition is still, to a certain extent, subjective, since the aggregation of response
times in a “specific context” is subjective, and the setting of a limit at 99% is an arbitrary
limit. Nevertheless, it is an operational definition which can be used, and we might try to
confirm that it is in line with the intuitions of users of CMC, i.e. that at times longer than
this “lower limit” people no longer expect to receive an answer, and that at times shorter
than this lower limit, people still think there is a reasonable chance to receive a response.
The ability to generalize from this definition is subject to a wider analysis of
responsiveness profiles in various situations of online message-response pairs, an
analysis which we hope to perform through a meta-analysis of publications reporting on
response times in online communication.
The “lower limit” will vary between different contexts, and it is important to try and
define what are the major variables influencing the lower limit, and in what manner they
influence it. It is impossible at this stage to define a-priori which of the factors will be
investigated by us, and will prove to be important factors, but the following factors are
likely to be important:
Medium synchronicity: we hypothesize that in synchronous media (such as IM),
response times will be significantly shorter than in asynchronous media (such as email or
Usenet discussion boards) simply since in synchronous communication the participants
usually sit by the computer at the same time, and are expected to read incoming messages
as they come, and to respond. Failure to respond actually means the end of the
conversation. Nevertheless, the border between asynchronous and synchronous media is
blurring, with people using purportedly asynchronous email for rapid exchanges of email
(Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005; Tyler & Tang, 2003), and not responding immediately to
synchronous chat and instant messaging which can take place in a few parallel sessions,
as well as while multi-tasking (Shiu & Lenhart, 2004).
Content of message: we expect that different messages will result in different response
times. For example, messages that require to perform a specific action before responding
33
(such as retrieving a piece of information) will show a longer response time than
messages which do not require any actions before responding. Responses that require
careful wording will take more time than those that do not. Urgent and high priority
messages might receive attention earlier, and thus be responded to earlier. In addition, we
expect to be able to identify cues and signs that signal the wish to receive a response, or
to receive is in a speedy manner. Nevertheless, we would also expect responses to
messages which do not specifically ask for a response, and there are also differences in
the degree of “questionability” of questions in messages, for example: rhetoric questions.
Frequency of message checking: Since messages obviously have to be read before a
response is created, frequency of checking for new messages will inevitably influence
response time. This is correct not only for asynchronous media, but even for written
synchronous tools, which do allow people to wait a while before reading incoming
messages.
Sender recipient relations: We expect the identity of the sender and of the recipient to
influence response time. An obvious example is spam: people who receive unsolicited
commercial email are quite unlikely to respond to it. Other examples could be
hierarchical relations within a workplace, client/customer relations, teacher/student, etc.
In addition, it is expected that the identity of others to whom the message is sent (for
example through “carbon copying”) will influence the responsiveness, as has already
been demonstrated in a work about “diffusion of responsibility” online (Barron &
Yechiam, 2002).
Cultural and psychological background of recipient: as with other non verbal
communication cues, we expect chronemics to differ between different cultures, for
example such that can be distinguished as separate “speech communities” (Hymes,
1974). Moreover, we expect different personalities to have different responsiveness
profiles, based on their attention to detail, tendency to procrastinate, etc.
The ability to contextualize response times and take into consideration the influence of
the last four categories on responsiveness behavior will be limited at the stage of the
research covered in this proposal. Before being able to contextualize, we will attempt to
34
generalize, define, and construct a methodology for measurement of the key variables
involved in any type of online silence, and create the foundations and benchmarks that
will then allow a closer look at specific contexts such as cultural, personal and situational.
Alternative Definitions
An additional way to look at online silence is to look for the written equivalent of
“pauses” in speech. If, for example, we look at email, some texts are written as one block,
with hardly any pause signs such as punctuation marks or new lines, while others use
punctuation marks, and paragraphs for clearer structure. These might signal rapid, pause-
less speech, and patient measured speech, respectively. In this respect, it might be
important to understand the issue of turn taking cues. We have chosen not to look into
this aspect of silence, and focus on the more paradigmatic message-response pair,
following the time-honored tradition of interactivity research (Rafaeli, 1988).
Another alternative definition of silence might be a subjective one, defining silence as the
time by which the recipient decides there is no longer a realistic chance to receive a reply,
or, on the replier’s side, when a conscious decision not to reply is taken. This last
definition touches, of course, only on advertent silence. This alternative subjective
definition is not conducive to the quantitative and unobtrusive approach chosen by us for
its objectivity and testability, though it is important to point out that in some particular
cases such a subjective definition is the best way to contextualize the communication
going on.
Intentional and Unintentional Silence
After defining online silence, we will explore the “silent side” of the equation, in an
attempt to understand the reasons for creating online silence. The treatment of the side
producing the silence will focus on the difference between intentional silence, defined as
a conscious decision not to reply, and unintentional silence, which covers all other
possibilities. Unlike traditional communication methods, unintentional silence has a more
prominent role in text-only CMC. Looking at Diagram 1 which describes a typical text-
based CMC communication cycle (for example in email), it is possible to see that
unintentional silence can be a result of many events: A message written but mistakenly
35
left unsent (stage 1); A message sent into cyberspace but not arrived (stage 2); A message
arrived but left unopened or opened unsuccessfully (stage 3); A message opened but left
partially or fully unread (stage 4); A message read but not understood to require a
response (stage 5); A message whose recipient intended to reply on later, but failed to do
so (stage 6). A message whose recipient intended to reply immediately, but did not (stage
7). Thus, all of the “no arrows”, lead to online silence, with the exception of the stage 6
“not now” option, which might or might not lead to silence.
Special treatment will be given (especially in the context of asynchronous media) on a
hybrid state, in which a conscious decision is made to postpone a reply (stage 6 “not
now” option), a conscious decision which can result in three outcomes: a later conscious
decision to reply or not to reply, or an unconscious decision not to reply (forgetting to
respond, and/or running out of time). In this discussion of the important role of
unintentional silence in text-only CMC, we will be able to use the nomenclature devised
by Kurzon (1998). As a background reference for this discussion we may attempt to
estimate what percentage of questions are answered in given media and contexts, for
example, what percentage of emails in which a question is asked, actually receive a reply.
Intentional Silence
We will collect information about intentional silence, possibly as an “impression
formation” tool to influence “responsiveness image”, an expression of status, a way to
assert power, a polite way to convey a difficult message, a tool for avoidance, as well as a
mechanism for indecision and procrastination. An interesting complexity will be added
by the “evasive answer”: a response which might look like an answer to the query, but is
actually not an answer at all, but rather a response that does not answer the question. We
hypothesize that one of the key factors taken into consideration in cases when a conscious
decision to not respond is taken, will be the level of certainty the sender of the original
message has about whether the silence is intentional or unintentional.
Unintentional Silence
We will collect information on unintentional silence. Possibly as a result of
communication overload, of ineffective inbox management (in email and other
36
asynchronous media), of parallel processing (communicating while doing other actions
such as other communication, work, etc) esp. in synchronous media, of not understanding
that a response is required (possibly as a result of missing a part of the message, or
misinterpreting turn taking and closure cues), as a result of procrastination, as well as a
result of technical failure. Specific attention will need to be given to the emerging role of
false positive spam filtering of emails in the loss of email messages. We hypothesize that
two key factors in unintentional silence in email usage will have to do with
communication overload, sometimes in conjunction with ineffective mail folder
management.
How is Silence Experienced and Interpreted
The “receiving end” of the silence also needs to be researched, and the questions will be
how is the silence interpreted, and what actions are taken subsequently. The discussion of
the interpretation phase will be in the context of attribution theory (see Social Cognition
section above), looking at the perception of silence, judgment of intention (or
unintentional silence), the attribution of disposition, the antecedents of the attribution, as
well as the results of the attribution: behavioral, emotional/affective, and altered
expectations about self and others.
Interpreting Silence
Possible interpretations of silence
The possible interpretations of silence will follow the same structure as defined in the
previous chapter and Diagram 1, since the interpretations can be of intentional or
unintentional silence created at all seven stages. It will be interesting to try and
understand how this interpretation process is structured, and we hypothesize that a key
element in this process will be uncertainty, since uncertainty has a dual role in this
process. The first is the significantly greater uncertainty about CMC silence when it
comes to being able to discriminate between intentional and unintentional silence. This
uncertainty makes it more difficult to unequivocally attribute the silence to an intention
of the silent party. The second role of uncertainty, in the case of intentional silence, is the
uncertainty inherent to the interpretation of silence as a non-verbal cue, an uncertainty not
37
unique to CMC. We hypothesize that the interpretation process will, at least in its initial
phases, focus on minimizing uncertainty both about the “intentionality” of the silence, as
well as about its interpretation in case it is intentional. We expect to link this uncertainty
to Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory axioms, and especially to axioms 1, 2 and 5
which are particularly pertinent in the case of online silence (see section Social Cognition
above).
The effects of various interpretations
Different interpretations of the silence will result in different decision about who is
responsible for the silence, and consequently in different decisions on responses to the
silence and to different affective results. According to attribution theory, the result is a
function not only of the interpretations and attribution, but also of the personality of the
decision maker, and other factors.
Responsibility
The three main categories of responsible parties are the sender, the recipient and third
parties. For example, the sender can take responsibility for the silence if s/he finds out the
message was never sent, or that it might not have been clear from the text that a response
is expected. The sender can also put the responsibility on the recipient’s shoulders, for
example assuming the recipient understood that a response is expected, but decided not to
answer, or that the recipient does not have good email habits and thus did not find the
message, or decided to reply on it at a later time and forgot about it. Lastly, the sender
can assign the responsibility to third parties, such as technology (the message got lost in
cyberspace, was classified as junk mail and discarded, was in an unreadable format) or
others (a personal assistant who filters emails, a child who inadvertently erased
something from a parent’s inbox).
Affective results of different interpretations
The unpleasant experience of online silence has been described before (Rintel & Pittam,
1997; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). They
report increasing frustration and hostility, and Williams et al. coined the term
38
“cyberostracism” to describe the negative experience of being ignored online. The effects
of cyberostracism have even been documented neurologically by performing a functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), suggesting that the social pain elicited by online
exclusion is analogous in its neurocognitive function to physical pain (Eisenberger et al.,
2003). Different interpretations of the silence can result in different affective results: the
results might be negative feelings, anger at or frustration with the responsible party. The
strength and direction of the feelings need to be explored.
Responses
The combination of the above (interpretation, responsibility and affective consequences)
can result in different responses to the silence. People might “probe” the recipient by
sending another message, moving to a different media (including face-to-face) or
resending the message. They might also decide not to do anything, and they might alter
their behavior the next time they interact with that one person (ask again in a different
manner, retaliate by being silent or taking long to respond).
Conclusion
The process of creating and interpreting online silence is expected to be a socio-cognitive
act that includes iterative cycles of impression formation as well as attribution and
uncertainty reduction. We expect uncertainty to be one of the major elements involved in
these cycles, and that its role will be significantly greater than in traditional “face-to-face
silence”. We expect uncertainty to be more influential due to the reduced social cues of
the relatively poor mediums used for text-only CMC, and we expect a significant element
of these iterative cycles to focus on the ability to distinguish between intentional and
unintentional silence. We will attempt to show that the main difference between
“traditional” silence and online silence is the relative ubiquity of unintentional silence.
We hypothesize that an initial stage in interpreting online silence is forming an opinion if
the silence is unintentional (leading to one subset of reactions) or intentional (leading to
another subset of reactions to silence). The importance of this ability to distinguish
between intentional and unintentional silence will influence not only the interpretational
phase, but also the phase of silence creation, possibly both in attempts not to create
39
unintentional silence, as well as in attempts to increase the ambiguity of intentional
silence.
Table 2: Summary of key initial hypotheses mentioned in this proposal. Please see
Phases of this Proposal below:
Topic Initial hypothesisDistribution pattern of responsiveness profiles
The shape of responsiveness profiles will be similar to the one identified in the Enron research (Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005), i.e. highly skewed to the left, with a stretched out and rapidly diminishing right tail, possibly best described by the Gamma distribution.The x axis of the above distribution will be a function of the synchronicity of the medium, and of the frequency of checking for new messages. That frequency will also affect the width of the left hand peak: the less often messages are checked for, the wider it will be.
Creation of intentional silence
A key factor in the decision not to respond and to create intentional silence will be the ability of the original sender to know if the silence is intentional or unintentional. Commercial email (“spam”) will probably be an exceptional case.
Creation of unintentional silence
Two key factors in the unintentional creation of silence will be communication overload as well as, in he case of email, ineffective inbox management.
Interpreting online silence
A key element in the initial phase of interpreting online silence will be an effort to minimize uncertainty as to whether the silence is intentional or unintentional.
Cyberostracism A significant proportion of the cases of negative reaction to online silence will stem from unintentional silence.
Import of the Research Question
The importance of silence in communication is well established, and is reflected in the
many expressions idioms and quotations associated with it, as well as its omnipresence in
various arts. Text-based CMC is an emerging form of communication which is at present
a key communication channel for interpersonal and organizational exchanges (Wellman
& Haythornwaite, 2002) . It has already been established that the appearance of new
communicative technologies has more than superficial effects, and may have major social
impacts, and even restructure consciousness (Ong, 1988). Thus, the research of online
silence has both theoretical as well as practical importance.
40
Contributions to Theory
We expect the results of this work to contribute to the theory and application of
interactional coherence issues in CMC. We expect not only to use attribution theory to
further understand online silence, but also to contribute to the extension of this theory
into the online arena, as well as provide examples of its applicability in highly ambiguous
contexts. We believe the results will add a new angle to the issue of media poverty and
thus influence the theories of media richness and of reduced social cues, as well as the
theory of media synchronicity in the context of text-only CMC. We expect uncertainty
reduction theory to be enriched by knowledge gained about the nature of early and
introductory online interactions. We expect our results to support or to weaken the SIDE
model. Lastly, we hope the results will contribute to the understanding of issues in social
exclusion and of issues of social translucence in online communication.
Contributions to Practice
Since text-based CMC is such a ubiquitous communication tool, and since very strong
negative feelings have been linked to online silence, it is our belief that it is in the public
interest to be better informed about this non-verbal cue. For example, 61% of 750
European office workers polled by palmOne (CNN, 2004; PalmOne, 2004) said business
decisions are being delayed due to lack of email response. One quarter of the respondents
said they have to chase for a response to more than half of all the emails they send (70%
in Italy), and 11% of the British respondents have pretended not to have received an
email when chased. We hypothesize that in many of the situations of online silence which
lead to strong negative feelings, there was no calculated intention to create this strong
effect. Unlike traditional face-to-face cues, which result can be experienced immediately,
many users of tools such as email are not aware of the effect advertent or inadvertent
silence can have, and for them findings about online silence will be surprising and
interesting. In addition, we believe that there is a strong curiosity in the public as to how
common intentional and unintentional silences are, what can be done to distinguish
between the two, and how to handle each. The knowledge gained from our research can
educate the public and through that lower the overall level of uncertainty linked to the use
of text-based CMC. We hope to be able to provide, as a supplement to the academic
41
content, a list of such stress reducing tactics, tools and habits that are based on our
research findings, such as the initial list proposed by Collett and palmOne (PalmOne,
2004). For example, a well-known tip is that sticking to a single question per email
increases the likelihood or receiving a response. We hope not only to supplement the list
with additional ideas, but also to substantiate them.
42
“Well-timed silence hath more eloquence than speech”M T Tupper
Methodology
Defining Silence
Quantitative Definition
Silence will be defined using responsiveness profiles of several text-based CMC media,
in a given context, as described by us (Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005). We will attempt to build
the responsiveness profiles in as unobtrusive a manner as possible through methods such
as anonymous lurking, and post-factum collection of response times from available
archives. The main reason to use the “unobtrusive measures” approach (Webb et al.,
2000) is the added validity gained through the use of nonreactive measures, as well as
from triangulations of results from various experiments. In addition, we will analyze
published data about response times in CMC using the same methodology, and if
required augment the non-obtrusive information through questionnaires and interviews of
CMC users. We will use the responsiveness profiles to define the 99% mark, the “lower
limit” as described above, of various media and contexts.
Estimation of Typical Response Rates
In an effort to estimate what percentage of the questions asked in text-based CMC receive
an answer (response rates), we will attempt to nonreactively identify questions, and
measure the rate of response to these questions, as well as question users of CMC. For
example, using the Enron database, we will attempt to analyze a number of users who
have a reasonably sized “sent items” folder by manually identifying emails which asked
for an answer, and searching the full database for an email responding to that question.
This method has several limits, since the answer might not have been captured in the
database, might have been given using a different medium such as phone or face-to-face,
or might simply not be identified by us. In addition, not all responses are a result of a
clear question asked in a previous message. Nevertheless, this information can be
“triangulated” with more obtrusive (reactive) information received through interviews
and questionnaires of CMC users. Through such reactive methods, we will also try to
43
identify the parameters that can contextualize specific cases, so as to provide not only a
general benchmark, but also tools to move from these general averages, to concrete
situations.
Expression and Perception of Silence
A combination of interviews and questionnaires will be used to assess reasons and means
of expressing online silence, as well as ways online silence is perceived, attributed, and
reacted on. The questions will focus on various factors hypothesized to influence the
expression and perception of online silence, for example such as those used in research
on the role of various theories: SIDE (social identity model of deindividuation effects),
SIP (social information processing), and URT (uncertainty reduction theory) in the initial
stages of CMC interactions (Tidwell & Walther, 2002) or of attribution theory in specific
contexts (DeJoy, 1994). Special attention will be given to the difference between
intentional and unintentional silence, using methodologies such as those used to research
intentional and unintentional embarrassment as well as other types of social rejection
(Keltner & Buswell, 1997; Sharkey, Kim, & Diggs, 2001; Twenge, Catanese, &
Baumeister, 2003). We will also try to confirm the findings suggested by these reactive
methods, by looking for unobtrusive evidence in archives such as the Enron corpus. It is
also possible that we will use techniques such as interaction process analysis (Bales,
1950) as well as other qualitative tools (Orthmann, 2000).
A Meta-analysis of Research on Online Responsiveness
A meta-analysis will be performed on published work relating to online responsiveness.
This meta-analysis will cover both peer-reviewed academic publications which report on
online responsiveness such as Sheehan & McMillan (1999), as well as industry reports
such as those published by customerrespect.com (Customer-Respect-Group, 2004). See
section online responsiveness and response times above.
Research Populations
We plan to reach as diverse populations as possible, since silence is a ubiquitous
phenomenon across all online user populations, and since our intention is to try and reach
44
general results that can then be contextualized in specific cases. We assume that the
populations we will reach will be using text-only CMC for professional, recreational and
educational purposes. We hope to reach demographically diverse populations, since
clearly different demographic groups display different online behavior (Rice, Shepherd,
Katz, & Dutton, 2004 in preparation). Privacy concerns will always limit our ability to
reach research populations in an unreactive manner, but a “windfall” opportunity like the
Enron Corpus (Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005; Klimt & Yang, 2004) can assist in overcoming
these challenges.
Summary
This proposal covers a wide spectrum of methods, both quantitative and qualitative, all of
which aim to create a methodological basis for the in-depth investigation of various
aspects of online silence. Some of the methodologies already exist, and others will need
to be developed, by adapting existing methodologies and measurement tools. Table 3
summarizes these methodologies.
Table 3: methodologies
Purpose Methodology/tool Based onDefine online silence
Responsiveness profiles of various audience and media combinations, based on archives, logs and other databases
(Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005)
Meta-analysis of published data about online responsiveness and irresponsiveness
Estimate typical response rates
Unobtrusively measure from databases
(Webb et al., 2000)
Interviews and questionnairesUnderstand expression and perception of silence
Interviews and questionnaires Methodologies employed in the following areas of research such as: attribution theory, uncertainty reduction theory, and social information processing.
45
“The silence, often of pure innocence, persuades where speaking fails”William Shakespeare
Phases of the Proposal
This proposal suggests a multi-stage research plan. Initially, we suggest continuing
research we started in the last year, which attempts to create a clear definition of online
silence in text-based CMC. We have relatively well formed, though not yet formally
stated, hypotheses that need to be established or refuted, as well as a methodology to
create the definition, and access to databases and populations necessary for this ground
laying phase. Following the results of the first phase, we propose to explore the socio-
cognitive basis of the behaviors associated with expressing, experiencing and interpreting
online silence. The hypotheses and methodologies of this later phase are less formed than
those of the first phase, and will, to a large extent stem from these findings. Despite the
relative imprecision and vagueness of that follow-up stage, we believe it is feasible and
executable, based on similar socio-cognitive work presented above, which looked at the
online manifestation of human behavior. We acknowledge that at this phase we are
unable to describe our plans in detail. We believe that the explanatory success of
attribution theory and of the uncertainty reduction theory, as well as the interesting
findings on lurking, interactional coherence, and social translucence provide a firm
enough theoretical basis to substantiate the assumption that online silence will be
amenable to research with similar tools, and will result in valuable findings.
Despite the fact that our intended purpose is to research online silence and
irresponsiveness, a significant part of the work will have to focus on understanding online
responsiveness, and then derive the data about irresponsiveness and silence from its
complement. This limitation is a result of the surprising scarcity of data about online
responsiveness, a paucity highlighted by our perspective on irresponsiveness. This need
to produce extensive information about responsiveness, and not only about silence, will
allow us to come up with an additional deliverable in conjunction with the last phases of
the research: a list of suggested policies and technological improvements aimed at
improving online communication, responsiveness, and responsiveness perception.
46
“It is difficult to keep quiet if you have nothing to do.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
Resources
47
Appendices
Appendix 1 – definition of “silence” from the Oxford English Dictionary online edition (OED, 1989)
silence, n.
1. a. The fact of abstaining or forbearing from speech or utterance (sometimes with reference to a particular matter); the state or condition resulting from this; muteness, reticence, taciturnity. Occas. with a or in pl. a1225 Ancr. R. 78 Ine silence & ine hope schal beon ower strenc e. Ibid., Heo mei ec hopien et heo schal ec singen urh hire scilence sweteliche ine heouene. c1375 Sc. Leg. Saints xxxiii. (George) 637 [He] gert scilence be mad, til he had sad at wes in his gule. 1388 WYCLIF Acts xix. 33 And Alisaundre axide with his hoond silence, and wolde elde a resoun to the puple. c1420 LYDG. Assembly of Gods 44 In Plutoys name [there was] commaundyd silence. 1474 CAXTON Chesse II. iii. (1883) 38 And oftetymes they selle as welle theyr scilence as theyr vtterance. 1535 COVERDALE Job xxix. 21 Vnto me men gaue eare,..& with sylence they taried for my councell. 1597 SHAKES. 2 Hen. IV, II. ii. 178 No word to your Master that I am yet in Towne. There's for your silence. 1601 CAMPION Wks. (1909) 24 Doe not demaund why I am mute: Loues silence doth all speech confute. a1668 DAVENANT News fr. Plymouth I. i, Silence becomes Men best, when Women talk. 1720 OZELL Vertot's Rom. Rep. I. III. 157 The People intimidated, kept in a profound Silence for some Time. 1781 COWPER Retirement 414 The tongue..Shall own itself a stamm'rer in that cause, Or plead its silence as its best applause. 1818 SHELLEY Julian 363 Nor dream that I will join the vulgar cry; Or with my silence sanction tyranny. 1847 EMERSON Poems Wks. (Bohn) I. 471 Ye taught my lips a single speech, And a thousand silences. 1875 FARRAR Silence & Voices ii. 29 What is called the silence of ignorance may sometimes be the silence of repudiation, sometimes even the reticence of scorn. 1967 G. STEINER Lang. & Silence 415 Dickens, Hopkins, Kipling are examples of modern writers whose root sensibility was oral, and who tried to adapt essentially oral means to the silences of print.
personif. 1607 SHAKES. Cor. II. i. 192 My gracious silence, hayle: Would'st thou haue laugh'd, had I come Coffin'd home? 1667 MILTON P.L. IV. 604 The wakeful Nightingale..all night long her amorous descant sung; Silence was pleas'd. 1815 SHELLEY Alastor 65 And Silence, too enamoured of that voice, Locks its mute music in her rugged cell. a1875 G. M. HOPKINS Poems (1967) 31 Elected Silence, sing to me.
48
b. In the phrases to keep (or hold) silence, to break silence, in silence. (a) a1225 Ancr. R. 22 Vrom et, efter Preciosa, holde silence. c1290 S. Eng. Leg. I. 228/324 Hov holde e so silence at neuer on ne spekez with o ur? c1375 Sc. Leg. Saints xl. (Ninian) 336 As ai come til his presence, he gert e puple kepe scilence. c1450 Rule Syon Monast. liii. in Collect. Topogr. I. (1834) 31 Alle schal there kepe hyghe silence. 1471 CAXTON Recuyell (Sommer) I. 122 With this Iupiter helde his pees and kept scilence. 1560 J. DAUS tr. Sleidane's Comm. 18 He required him that his adversaries might kepe silence. 1782 PRIESTLEY Corrupt. Chr. II. IX. 211 They kept a strict silence all the week. 1819 SHELLEY Cenci IV. iv. 88 He keeps firm silence; but these lines found on him May speak. 1841 LANE Arab. Nts. I. 102 This is an event respecting which it is impossible to keep silence.
(b) 1390 GOWER Conf. I. 86 Thus fulofte my silence I breke. c1400 Destr. Troy 2525 Than Troilus..brake Sylense belyue, and abrode saide. 1590 SPENSER F.Q. I. i. 42 He [Morpheus] mumbled soft, but would not all his silence breake. 1667 MILTON P.L. IX. 895 At length First to him~self he inward silence broke. 1718 POPE Iliad XIX. 461 He broke Eternal silence, and portentous spoke. 1783 BURNS Poor Mailie 12 At length poor Mailie silence brak. 1842 BROWNING Pied Piper iv, An hour they sate in council, At length the Mayor broke silence.
(c) c1380 WYCLIF Sel. Wks. I. 93 We shulden be tymes reste, and preye to God in scilence. c1430 LYDG. Min. Poems (Percy Soc.) 41 He kept the nyhte in peas and silence. c1450 St. Cuthbert (Surtees) 993 an sole in silence sall he sitt, And rays him self abouen his witt. 1610 HOLLAND Camden's Brit. (1637) 566 In speech will I ever render thankes, and in silence acknowledge my selfe most deepely endebted. 1746 FRANCIS tr. Horace, Epist. I. xvii. 75 But had the Crow his Food in Silence eat, Less had his Quarrels been. 1757 W. WILKIE Epigoniad VII. 192 Amaz'd we stood; in silence, each his mind To fear and hope alternately resign'd. 1827 in Scott Chron. Canongate Introd. App., The next toast..he wished to be drunk in solemn silence. 1889 Sat. Rev. 9 Feb. 145/2 A brave man suffers in silence.
c. to put to silence, to silence by argument or prohibition; to put to death; also to put silence (un)to, to reduce to silence. (a) 1382 WYCLIF Matt. xxii. 34 Pharisees, heerynge that he hadde put silence to Saducees. 1508 KENNEDIE Flyting w. Dunbar 41 Heir I put sylence to the in all partis. 1677 A. YARRANTON Eng. Improv. 155, I know writing Books of Trade..puts a silence unto the whole History, be it never so good.
49
(b) 1502 ARNOLDE Chron. (1811) p. xxxvii, The ii. sonnys of Kinge Edward were put to silence. 1529 MORE Dyaloge I. Wks. 127/1 Ye haue put me to sylence, that I dare not nowe bee bolde to tell you that I haue sene it my selfe. 1579 W. WILKINSON Confut. Fam. Love Brief Descr. iiijb, Which wordes so often he repeated, that thereby he put Barry to silence. 1601 SHAKES. Jul. C. I. ii. 290 Murrellus and Flauius, for pulling scarffes off Cæsars Images, are put to silence. c1680 BEVERIDGE Serm. (1729) I. 499 So as to put them to silence. 1846 TRENCH Mirac. xix. (1862) 326 He had put them to silence and to shame before all the people. 1879 M. J. GUEST Lect. Hist. Eng. xlii. 424 Tyndale..would..sometimes put all the dignitaries to silence by his arguments.
fig. 1581 J. BELL Haddon's Answ. Osor. 254 Such force and dexterity, as may be able to putte your overthwart obstinacy to scilence. 1590 J. SMYTH in Lett. Lit. Men (Camden) 60 My little Booke..shall be put to silence and abolished.
d. Used imperatively, = Be silent; make no noise. 1590 SHAKES. Mids. N. V. i. 266 But silence, heere comes Thisby. 1667 MILTON P.L. VII. 216 Silence, ye troubl'd waves, and thou Deep, peace. 1728 POPE Dunc. III. 165 Silence, ye Wolves! while Ralph to Cynthia howls. 1819 SHELLEY Cyclops 475 Silence now! Ye know the close device. 1873 SYMONDS Grk. Poets vii. 225 Silence! Hush! what noise was this?
e. The renunciation of speech chosen or vowed by certain religious or monastic orders, esp. the Trappists; a period during which the members of a community or retreat renounce speech. Freq. in phr. the rule of silence. 1387, c1450 [see sense 7]. a1631 DONNE Poems (1633) 69 Harmelesse fish monastique silence keepe. 1884 ADDIS & ARNOLD Cath. Dict. 804/1 Probably the most trying part of all the discipline is the silence, no monk being allowed to speak to his brother on any occasion. 1921 G. O'DONOVAN Vocations xxii. 305 Hush, Sister. The rule of silence is no joke. 1957 P. L. FERMOR Time to keep Silence 67 There is a special dispensation from the rule of silence for the monks who deal with the abbey livestock when they are actually addressing their dumb charges. 1978 Oxford Diocesan Mag. Dec. 17/1 Then there was the two days' retreat... At no time..was the sense of fellowship more apparent than during the silence.
50
f. Proverbial phr. silence is golden. silence gives consent: see CONSENT n. 1c. 1834 CARLYLE Sart. Res. III. iii, in Fraser's Mag. June 668/1 As the Swiss Inscription says: Sprechen ist silbern, Schweigen ist golden (Speech is silvern, Silence is golden). 1865 W. WHITE Eastern England II. ix. 129 Silence is golden, says the proverb. We apprehended the full significance thereof when far away from busy thoroughfares. 1935 M. V. HUGHES Vivians vii. 138 ‘Did you tell him about that?’ ‘No, and I'm wondering whether I ought to?’ ‘I shouldn't if I were you. Silence is golden.’ 1980 J. O'NEILL Spy Game xxv. 239 ‘I'll tell you the rest..on the way back.’ He sealed her lips with a finger. ‘Meanwhile, silence is golden.’
2. a. The state or condition when nothing is audible; absence of all sound or noise; complete quietness or stillness; noiselessness. Sometimes personified. Also const. of (the night, etc.). 1382 WYCLIF Isaiah viii. 6 The watris of Siloe, that gon with cilence. 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. X. ii. (1495) 27b, Derknesse is seen yf noo thynge is seen, & scylence is knowen yf noo thynge is herde. 1500-20 DUNBAR Poems xxxv. 1 Lucina schynnyng in silence of the nicht. 1590 SPENSER F.Q. III. i. 59 Whenas all the world in silence deepe Yshrowded was. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. II. ii. 506 But as we often see against some storme, A silence in the Heauens. c1630 MILTON Circumcision 5 Through the soft silence of the list'ning night. 1738 WESLEY Hymns, ‘Regent of all the Worlds above’ iii, Fair Queen of Silence, Silver Moon. 1784 COWPER Task VI. 84 Stillness, accompanied with sounds so soft, Charms more than silence. 1832 MACAULAY Armada 49 Then bugle's note and cannon's roar the deathlike silence broke. 1850 TENNYSON In Mem. xix, There twice a day the Severn fills;..And makes a silence in the hills. 1878 BROWNING La Saisiaz 25 Can I..sharpen ear to recognize Sound o'er league and league of silence?
b. Used allusively to denote the state beyond this life. Chiefly in pl. and with initial capital. 1803-6 WORDSW. Ode Intimat. Immortality ix, Power to make Our noisy years seem moments in the being Of the eternal Silence. 1851 CARLYLE Sterling I. i, To return silently, with his small, sorely foiled bit of work, to the Supreme Silences. 1908 E. MILLER Martyrs of the Moors 55 In fear and darkness his soul floated out to the great Silence.
c. Tower of Silence, one of a number of small towers upon the summit of which the Parsees place their dead (see quot. 1865).
51
1865 Chambers's Encycl. VII. 300 Their dead are not buried, but exposed on an iron grating in the Dokhma, or tower of Silence, to the fowls of the air. c1880 GRANT Hist. India I. lxix. 359/1 The exposure of their dead in the Towers of Silence, to be eaten by the birds.
d. Phr. the rest is silence and varr., in allusion to the last words of the dying Hamlet (SHAKES. Ham. V. ii. 368). 1910 GALSWORTHY Justice II. 49 Once this cheque was altered and presented, the work of four minutes four mad minutes the rest has been silence. 1939 A. HUXLEY After Many a Summer II. i. 187 If only the rest were silence!.. What joy if the rest of Wordsworth had been silence, the rest of Coleridge, the rest of Shelley! 1982 Daily Tel. 2 June 16/4 In most of the countries involved the eternal tug-of-war between Government and news media has long since ended. The curtain has fallen. The rest is silence.
e. A period of silence observed in memory of the dead, esp. the two minutes' silence kept on the anniversary of Armistice Day (11 Nov. 1918) or, since 1946, on Remembrance Sunday. 1919 Times 12 Nov. 15/6 The Great Silence... At 11 o'clock yesterday morning the nation, in response to the King's invitation, paid homage to the Glorious Dead by keeping a two minutes' silence for prayer and remembrance. Ibid. 16/1 On the Stock Exchange, after the silence, a gong was sounded. 1926 A. TOPHAM Chron. Prussian Court xx. 245 We discussed among other things the Titanic disaster [1912] which had recently happened, and I remember referring to ‘the silence’ of two minutes by which the Canadian railways and churches had honoured the memory of the Canadians who had perished. 1929 B.B.C. Year-bk. 1930 78 Broadcasting the Silence November 11th, 1928. 1972 ‘E. LATHEN’ Murder without Icing (1973) xxii. 188 The game was preceded by a two-minute silence in memory of Billy Sicagusa. 1982 D. PHILLIPS Coconut Kiss vi. 52 You march once round the playground and salute the flag... Then you go in for the two minutes' silence.
3. a. Omission of mention, remark, or notice in narration. Chiefly in phrases to pass with, pass over in, silence. 1513 BRADSHAW St. Werburge Prol. 114 It were no reason her name be had in scylence, But to the people her name be magnyfyed. 1585 T. WASHINGTON tr. Nicholay's Voy. IV. xxxiii. 156 Ordinances, which I passe with silence. 1600 J. PORY tr. Leo's Africa III. 131, I would much rather haue smothered such matters in silence. 1667 MILTON P.L. VI. 385 Eternal silence be thir doome. 1711 ADDISON Spect. No. 1 3 As for the rest of
52
my Infancy, there being nothing in it remarkable, I shall pass it over in Silence.
b. Neglect or omission to write (about something); failure to communicate or reply. 1617 MORYSON Itin. II. 206 By Don Jeans silence from Spaine, this overture..tooke no effect as long as the Queene lived. 1698 FROGER Voy. Aj, The silence of all those who made the voyage with me, constrained me to expose it to publick view. 1771 Junius Lett. liv. (1788) 292, I under~stand that the public are not satisfied with my silence; that an answer is expected of me. 1790 PALEY Horæ Paul. II. i. 9 The silence of the historian..concerning any contribution, might lead us to look out for some different journey.
4. A small hammer used to command silence or order. Obs. 1 1556 in Jupp Acc. Carpenters' Comp. (1887) 139 He helde not his peess before the master hade knockyd with the sylence iij tymes.
5. Mus. A rest. 1752 tr. Rameau's Treat. Music 171 This Silence or Rest can be made but upon a Concord or consonant Note. 1856 MRS. BROWNING Aur. Leigh v. 342 The soul..With all its grand orchestral silences To keep the pauses of its rhythmic sounds.
6. Distill. Want of flavour in distilled spirit. (Cf. SILENT a. 5c.) 1879 Spon's Encycl. Manuf. I. 229 Owing to its ‘silence’, there is no possibility of detecting afterwards from what source it has been obtained.
7. attrib. and Comb., as silence time, and in recent use silence-box, command, room, rule, etc.; silence-loving adj.; silence cabinet, (a) = silence-box; (b) (see quot. 1929). 1889 Telephone I. 471/1 The public is also admitted to a silence-box at the Nottingham Post Office. 1894 Daily News 28 Mar. 3/1 These particulars are telephoned into a silence-box at the Central Savings Bank.
53
1893 PREECE & STUBBS Man. Teleph. 227 At most telephone exchanges a ‘silence cabinet’ is provided in the public office. 1929 B.B.C. Year-bk. 1930 309 In Savoy Hill there are nine studios, six of which are equipped with silence cabinets (these are small rooms adjacent to the studios from which the announcer can speak before switching over to the studio itself).
1855 F. W. FABER Growth in Holiness ix. 147 It wrung a cry even from the silence-loving Heart of our ever-blessed Saviour. 1912 W. OWEN Let. 23 June (1967) 142 The firm Superintendent of their Sunday School, the silence-loving, and the melancholy-voiced, on that day capered about the lawn among them. 1958 S. HYLAND Who goes Hang? xviii. 77 They were in the Silence Room of the Library, a room in which conversation..is..a tabu. 1959 T. S. ELIOT Elder Statesman II. 47 And remember, when you want to be very quiet There's the Silence Room. With a television set.
1894 Daily News 14 May 5/1 He promised the modification and virtually the abolition of the silence rule.
1387 TREVISA Higden (Rolls) V. 19 Speke wolde he nevere, as it is i-write in e questiouns at he wroot in his scilence tyme. c1450 in Aungier Syon (1840) 268 Eche suster..shalle answer thus a ene in lyke voyce thof it be sylence tyme.
54
Appendix 2 – Copy of Kalman & Rafaeli, 2005
55